Author
Topic: Answering Catholic apologists (Read 3907 times)

Below is a list of common denunciations that I've heard contemporary Catholic apologists fling at the Orthodox Church. Most of us have encountered these points before, but I'm curious about the succinct answers one could offer if presented with these. Feel free to address one or more; this is more of an interesting topic to me than anything else (I'm pretty sure all Catholic apologists live in EWTN anyway).

------

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.

2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.

3. The Orthodox Church is resisting union with Rome because of ethnic pride.

4. The pre-schism Eastern churches would always go to Rome to settle issues.

5. Christ established a man, Peter, to be the Rock, and we must be loyal to his successors.

6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.

7. Doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception were always with the Church in "seed" form; only later did they develop into formal doctrines (see Cardinal Newman).

8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.

9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.

10. Open up a phone book and look at all the Orthodox churches! Russian, Greek, Ukranian. Where's the unity?

11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.

Below is a list of common denunciations that I've heard contemporary Catholic apologists fling at the Orthodox Church. Most of us have encountered these points before, but I'm curious about the succinct answers one could offer if presented with these. Feel free to address one or more; this is more of an interesting topic to me than anything else (I'm pretty sure all Catholic apologists live in EWTN anyway).

------

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.Church calls a council, not a man2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.That isn't the definition of Orthodox3. The Orthodox Church is resisting union with Rome because of ethnic pride.Prove that is the cause and not the long list of doctrinal issues that we usually bring up.4. The pre-schism Eastern churches would always go to Rome to settle issues.Let us count the number of ecumenical councils in Rome...Oh wait...5. Christ established a man, Peter, to be the Rock, and we must be loyal to his successors.Like the Patriarch of Antioch where Peter was the first bishop?6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.I thought we were a haven of ethnic pride, which is it? Malcontent converts or crazy ethnics? Make up your mind!7. Doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception were always with the Church in "seed" form; only later did they develop into formal doctrines (see Cardinal Newman).Perhaps it should have stayed in seed form8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.Like nullifications to every Tom, Dick and Harry?9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.This is probably true, but 1,000 years of getting stepped on does have a tendency to breed suspicion.10. Open up a phone book and look at all the Orthodox churches! Russian, Greek, Ukranian. Where's the unity?And yet we all commune together. It is amazing how that works.11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.Let us not get into the wide variations of teachings because the Catholics can beat just about everyone on that hands down...

Below is a list of common denunciations that I've heard contemporary Catholic apologists fling at the Orthodox Church. Most of us have encountered these points before, but I'm curious about the succinct answers one could offer if presented with these. Feel free to address one or more; this is more of an interesting topic to me than anything else (I'm pretty sure all Catholic apologists live in EWTN anyway).

Long posts aren't read by anyone, and short posts can be dismissed out of hand as not providing enough details or evidence, or overgeneralizing/oversimplifying. But you asked for succinct, so I will try to go that route.

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.

What issues are contemporary, exactly? The ones I see bandied about (abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality) are issues that have been discussed and dealt with for the entire life of the Church. As for ecumenical councils, I give some thoughts in reply #40 here. Perhaps I'll just leave it at: councils can be called that deal with things, what label we attach to it (pan-Orthodox, General, Ecumenical, etc.) is of trivial importance compared to the main issue, which is how the Council is received (or rejected).

Quote

2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.

Or, Catholics can't call themselves Catholics because they aren't in union with the Orthodox. I don't think either is the case, just saying that these types of statements go both ways, but generally don't amount to much.

Quote

3. The Orthodox Church is resisting union with Rome because of ethnic pride.

Almost certainly some are. Almost certainly some aren't. Almost certainly for some it is a factor. Almost certainly for some it is not. The same can be said of theology, politics, nationalism, culture, and ten other things. And not just about the Orthodox--it's a human thing, not an Orthodox or Catholic thing.

Quote

4. The pre-schism Eastern churches would always go to Rome to settle issues.

Sometimes they did. Sometimes they didn't like what Rome would say and they'd ignore them, or condemn them, or coerce them. Sometimes they appealed to Constantinople; there's a canon from a Ecumenical Council which gives eastern Christians that right. But this is besides the point. The argument might be better stated: When Rome was Orthodox the Orthodox went to Rome for support. Well duh.

Quote

5. Christ established a man, Peter, to be the Rock, and we must be loyal to his successors.

So much could be said here. I'll just leave it at this: I was just reading today about how the Latin theologians in the 7th to 9th centuries usually saw Peter as the rock in polemical literature, but almost never in exegetical literature. Interesting, that. Things are never as clear as the apologists would have us believe. (that goes for my apologetical slant on things in the link I gave above).

Quote

6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.

See my answer to #3 for what I'd say here as well. There are all sorts of people with all sorts of reasons in all sorts of groups at all times in all places.

Quote

7. Doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception were always with the Church in "seed" form; only later did they develop into formal doctrines (see Cardinal Newman).

Maybe. It is debatable what this means, whether it is permissible, whether these are good developments even if we allow for the concept in general, etc. But this is an argument much more helpful for Catholics trying to solidify their faith, and not really for convincing most Orthodox IMO.

Quote

8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.

St. Gregory the Theologian allowed divorce in the 4th century. In fact he gave an oration in front of all the bishops and political types saying so. Didn't know ecumenism was so old. As for the other thing, meh. I'm not going to get into a contraception debate again. Just read the Fathers.

Quote

9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.

Some are. Some aren't... etc. etc. Certainly there does seem to be a tendency of Orthodox to be more hesitant and cautious. For better or worse.

Quote

10. Open up a phone book and look at all the Orthodox churches! Russian, Greek, Ukranian. Where's the unity?

Open up the Bible and see Paul's epistles written to the Church at Corinth, the Church at Ephesus, etc. Where was the unity? Can't there be both unity and diversity? Also, I see ethnic heritage stuff attached to Catholicism all the time here in western PA. And you can find it in Catholicism as well, if on a much smaller scale and less overt.

Quote

11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.

Again, so many ways to go here, so I'll just share something from my own experience: I had a Catholic priest tell me once that even though I was chrismated Orthodox, that I would have to be confirmed if I wanted to join the Catholic Church, which I don't believe is the standard practice these days. He was a fairly old priest, perhaps from an era when they were less hospitable to the Orthodox? Oops, sorry, didn't mean to bring up the fact that the open arms is a fairly ecumenical and modernistic thing.

When questioned by Jonh Baptist followers He said "Look, the blind see, the paralytics walk". Miracles are the sign of Christ. Only the Catholic Church puts its miracles under severe scrutiny to prove they have happened. So it's the only place you can be sure He is.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.Church calls a council, not a manHow does the Church call a council without someone to lead it? I'd like to see evidence of an ecumenical council held without the Pope.2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.That isn't the definition of OrthodoxOrthodox means adhering to all doctrines of the Church that Christ established; you reject the Petrine See, and you are outside the Church. How then, can you be truly Orthodox?3. The Orthodox Church is resisting union with Rome because of ethnic pride.Prove that is the cause and not the long list of doctrinal issues that we usually bring up.All these issues have been flattened out by recent discussions. For instance, we've reached a consensus that the "fillioque" is not heretical, and that purgatory is just a way of explaining the purgation process that all Orthodox believe but have not dogmatized. I still assert that, above all else, the Orthodox are holding onto their national identities instead of seeking the True Faith!4. The pre-schism Eastern churches would always go to Rome to settle issues.Let us count the number of ecumenical councils in Rome...Oh wait...I meant the bishop of Rome. He presided over the ecumenical councils; his primacy was even cemented at the Council of Chalcedon.5. Christ established a man, Peter, to be the Rock, and we must be loyal to his successors.Like the Patriarch of Antioch where Peter was the first bishop?Right, but Peter moved around and he died in Rome, so that's where his proper line began. Also, Rome's primacy was established at Chalcedon.6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.I thought we were a haven of ethnic pride, which is it? Malcontent converts or crazy ethnics? Make up your mind!You're both. Most Orthodox are ethnic groups who are too proud to join Rome, but recently we've seen a vocal crowd of apologists coming from the Protestant camps. These are the people with the clear hatred of Rome, who bring their Protestant prejudices with them to Orthodoxy.7. Doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception were always with the Church in "seed" form; only later did they develop into formal doctrines (see Cardinal Newman).Perhaps it should have stayed in seed formWhat do you mean? Christ promised that he would always be with us, and that he would send a Comforter. Did you just expect things to stop at Pentecost? No, we would have to wait, just like Christ said.8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.Like nullifications to every Tom, Dick and Harry?Do you understand that an annulment is a pronouncement that a marriage was never sacramentally valid to begin with? It's completely different than a divorce. And you didn't address my point; why have the Orthodox gone against the teachings of Christ and His Church by allowing contraception (bannned by the Fathers) and divorce (banned by Christ Himself)?9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.This is probably true, but 1,000 years of getting stepped on does have a tendency to breed suspicion.We've done more than enough to show that we changed! We even gave back your sacked icons to you! We've done everything and yet you purposefully scorn us. This is a new age, and you can't get stuck in this medieval way of thinking.10. Open up a phone book and look at all the Orthodox churches! Russian, Greek, Ukranian. Where's the unity?And yet we all commune together. It is amazing how that works.Well yeah, but which one am I supposed to go to? Who holds the authority?11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.Let us not get into the wide variations of teachings because the Catholics can beat just about everyone on that hands down...Uh, have you read the Catechism? Everything that Catholics must know is contained there. It has the seal of the Holy See, so we know it's authoritative. Anyone teaching something else is teaching their own views and not those of the Roman Catholic Church.

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.

2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.

3. The Orthodox Church is resisting union with Rome because of ethnic pride.

4. The pre-schism Eastern churches would always go to Rome to settle issues.

5. Christ established a man, Peter, to be the Rock, and we must be loyal to his successors.

6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.

7. Doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception were always with the Church in "seed" form; only later did they develop into formal doctrines (see Cardinal Newman).

8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.

9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.

10. Open up a phone book and look at all the Orthodox churches! Russian, Greek, Ukranian. Where's the unity?

11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.Church calls a council, not a manHow does the Church call a council without someone to lead it? I'd like to see evidence of an ecumenical council held without the Pope.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Pope attended most if any of the ecumenical counsels2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.That isn't the definition of OrthodoxOrthodox means adhering to all doctrines of the Church that Christ established; you reject the Petrine See, and you are outside the Church. How then, can you be truly Orthodox?We view the Rock spoken of in Scripture in accordance with the more patristic understanding of it. [Insert the standard patristic quotes on the matter here]3. The Orthodox Church is resisting union with Rome because of ethnic pride.Prove that is the cause and not the long list of doctrinal issues that we usually bring up.All these issues have been flattened out by recent discussions. For instance, we've reached a consensus that the "fillioque" is not heretical, and that purgatory is just a way of explaining the purgation process that all Orthodox believe but have not dogmatized. I still assert that, above all else, the Orthodox are holding onto their national identities instead of seeking the True Faith!You have not relented on the Papal dogmas which continue to be a major hinderance and I would dispute the full characterization of the issues you mentioned above.4. The pre-schism Eastern churches would always go to Rome to settle issues.Let us count the number of ecumenical councils in Rome...Oh wait...I meant the bishop of Rome. He presided over the ecumenical councils; his primacy was even cemented at the Council of Chalcedon.First among equals, not ruler over all other bishops. It is a position of honor. 5. Christ established a man, Peter, to be the Rock, and we must be loyal to his successors.Like the Patriarch of Antioch where Peter was the first bishop?Right, but Peter moved around and he died in Rome, so that's where his proper line began. Also, Rome's primacy was established at Chalcedon.Many patristic writings refer this falling to the Apostles collectively and not a Petrine exclusive complete with its own exclusive succession.6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.I thought we were a haven of ethnic pride, which is it? Malcontent converts or crazy ethnics? Make up your mind!You're both. Most Orthodox are ethnic groups who are too proud to join Rome, but recently we've seen a vocal crowd of apologists coming from the Protestant camps. These are the people with the clear hatred of Rome, who bring their Protestant prejudices with them to Orthodoxy.Perhaps, but that is no different than saying the Catholic church is comprised of disaffected Espicopalians and Hispanics with weird syncretic beliefs. There are always going to be oddball elements of any organization, but that doesn't mean the organization is wrong.7. Doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception were always with the Church in "seed" form; only later did they develop into formal doctrines (see Cardinal Newman).Perhaps it should have stayed in seed formWhat do you mean? Christ promised that he would always be with us, and that he would send a Comforter. Did you just expect things to stop at Pentecost? No, we would have to wait, just like Christ said.That still doesn't mean we can make up doctrines that have no basis in patristic teachings. If there are early indications of the sinlessness of the Theotokos or that the Church will not fail, that doesn't give us the right to extrapolate those teachings into PI and IC8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.Like nullifications to every Tom, Dick and Harry?Do you understand that an annulment is a pronouncement that a marriage was never sacramentally valid to begin with? It's completely different than a divorce. And you didn't address my point; why have the Orthodox gone against the teachings of Christ and His Church by allowing contraception (bannned by the Fathers) and divorce (banned by Christ Himself)?Christ also said that the teaching is given to he who can accept it. There are ideals which we should strive for, but if we cannot achieve them, Christ allows economy through grace.9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.This is probably true, but 1,000 years of getting stepped on does have a tendency to breed suspicion.We've done more than enough to show that we changed! We even gave back your sacked icons to you! We've done everything and yet you purposefully scorn us. This is a new age, and you can't get stuck in this medieval way of thinking.We are holding fast the to the traditions that have been passed down through the ages. We can't just give those up because suddenly you want to hang out and be friends. Even your own Popes acknowledge that the Orthodox hold closer to the ancient liturgies than the Catholic Church does.10. Open up a phone book and look at all the Orthodox churches! Russian, Greek, Ukranian. Where's the unity?And yet we all commune together. It is amazing how that works.Well yeah, but which one am I supposed to go to? Who holds the authority?Close your eyes and put your finger down, any one will do.11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.Let us not get into the wide variations of teachings because the Catholics can beat just about everyone on that hands down...Uh, have you read the Catechism? Everything that Catholics must know is contained there. It has the seal of the Holy See, so we know it's authoritative. Anyone teaching something else is teaching their own views and not those of the Roman Catholic Church.I don't recall the Catholic Catechims addressing when someone can be baptized or chrismated. Those are canonical laws. We them too, but how a certain jurisdiction accepts someone is not as important as the fact that the do accept them. Look at the differences in your own rites and you will see and equally bewildering array of customs.

Ah yes, the good ol' baby approach. Too bad we don't have any around, what with out frequent contraception use!

Bah! You should visit our parish sometime. We're having a baby boom! The grown-ups will soon be outnumbered at Divine Liturgies on Sundays. Only God knows how many buckets of water I've carried on Sabbaths for them to be baptized these past few years...

Below is a list of common denunciations that I've heard contemporary Catholic apologists fling at the Orthodox Church. Most of us have encountered these points before, but I'm curious about the succinct answers one could offer if presented with these. Feel free to address one or more; this is more of an interesting topic to me than anything else (I'm pretty sure all Catholic apologists live in EWTN anyway).

------

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.

We have called several councils since 1054 (e.g. the Synod of Jerusalem, the Council of Constantinople 1593 (confirmed the elevation of the Moscow Patriarchate).

If Vatican II is an example of "settling contemporary issues," I'm not impressed.

A good number (most?) of the "Ecumenical Councils" their Supreme Pontiff has called have were to figure out who was "the real pope"and to assert his powers: the council of Florence is actually the council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, the pope convening the council finding himself deposed at Basel so he opened a rival council in Ferrara, and then moved it to Florence gain the East in support of its rivalry against Basel and its pope.

We shouldn't be ashamed that we have gotten out act together, while the Vatican has been so mired in schisms and heresies that it must continually call councils to deal with them.

6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.

St. Mark of Ephesus wasn't an "anti-Roman Protestant convert." And "anti-Roman Protestant converts" are in short supply in the largest Orthodox Church-the Patriarchate of Moscow.

8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.

Corban. Humanae Vitae does not and cannot cite any patristics for its argument.

And before Henry VIII couldn't get his "anullment" (the corban of divorce) from the prisoner of his estranged wife's nephew, he complained about the "shameless sentence from Rome" his aunt got for the same purpose.

11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.

So does the Vatican's flock. Some use Novus Ordo and some use Extraordinary Form.

Despite all the Vatican's drive for uniformity, consistency isn't its strong point.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

1. The Orthodox Church can't settle any contemporary issues; they can't call an ecumenical council without a leader.

In addition to Trisagion's excellent point, not every contemporary issue requires and ecumenical council to address it in the first place. Local/regional councils can deal with problems, too. It is a particularly Roman Catholic conceit to think that some final earthly authority need to be aroused in order for anyone to get anything done, but that has never been the case.

Quote

2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.

We can call ourselves Orthodox because we practice the correct/straight worship and believe in the true Christian doctrine as given to us by our fathers the Apostles and their disciples. We live it every day. That is what makes us Orthodox, not corporeal unity with any one particular church.

Quote

3. The Orthodox Church is resisting union with Rome because of ethnic pride.

Thanks to the existence of the Maronites, Italo-Albanians, and the various Rome-affiliated churches that came from subsections of the Nestorian church, there are actually more ethnically/culturally-aligned churches in the Roman communion than there are in either the EO or OO communions. Generally people who make this claim against the Orthodox have not examined their own communion closely enough to see if they might in fact be throwing stones in the proverbial glass house (which they certainly are, if they argue in this manner).

Quote

4. The pre-schism Eastern churches would always go to Rome to settle issues.

Nope. Nobody waited around for Rome to pronounce final judgment upon the canons of Constantinople to accept all of them, even as Rome continued to dissent from them. Neither could Rome be counted upon to codify Byzantine canon law at Trullo. Rome was likewise not appealed to in the fight against monothelitism, as it had been accepted by their own Pope, the disgraced Honorius who was anathematized by name in a Chalcedonian ecumenical council quite some time before the Great Schism.

Quote

5. Christ established a man, Peter, to be the Rock, and we must be loyal to his successors.

We are, whether that means being loyal to Patriarch John X (Yazigi) or HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas. Mirroring the above situation regarding "ethnic pride", the Roman Catholics have three Patriarchs connected to this See (one for the Melkites, another for the Maronites, and still another for the Syriac Catholics), so perhaps they should look into their own situation before condemn us.

Quote

6. The Orthodox Church has been infiltrated with anti-Roman Protestant converts; many of these converts would have joined us if they could get over their biases. As it is, the Orthodox Church is a safe haven for insincere dissenters.

No doubt this might be true in some cases, but it strikes me as disingenuous, as though those converts by rights should be the "property" of Rome by virtue of the fact that they are Westerners and Rome is the Western apostolic see. If Rome put 1/10th of the energy it puts into bad apologetics like this into restoring the reverence that was once present in its liturgies, conforming itself to true apostolic doctrine and not endless "development of doctrine", etc., this particular objection would vanish entirely (much to the delight of both Catholics and Orthodox, I'm sure), and then nobody would have to pretend to be able to read converts minds. (Incidentally, this kind of thinking also leaves out the many converts from RC-ism to Orthodoxy, such as myself...we are certainly not anti-Roman Protestants, no matter how much some RCs like to comfort themselves by painting us as such!)

Quote

7. Doctrines such as papal infallibility and the Immaculate conception were always with the Church in "seed" form; only later did they develop into formal doctrines (see Cardinal Newman).

Lots of things that came to be rejected by the Church can be traced back to ancient times. That doesn't make them right. The development of these rejected doctrines betrays their novelty, even if looking only at them with regard to the Western tradition itself (in other words, you don't even need to bring the Orthodox into it). No less formidable Roman Catholic saints than Bonaventure and Bernard of Clairvaux rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, for instance, and it is likewise not a secret that catechisms which were published prior to Vatican I, which bore imprimaturs, openly denied Papal Infalliblity (see for instance, Keenan's catechism published in the 1850s, which calls the idea that the Roman Pope is infallible a "Protestant invention").

Quote

8. The Orthodox Church has given into ecumenical pressures and allowed divorce and contraception. Only the Catholic Church stands firm on these important moral issues.

They have both by other names (annulments, NFP). Whatever happened to "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no"?

Quote

9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.

Orthodox and Catholics just have very different ideas of what union must consist of. No doubt some could be nicer individuals on both sides, but we are separated for solid doctrinal reasons (i.e., we cannot accept your doctrines for the sake of union with Rome anymore than you can disclaim them for the sake of union with the Orthodox Church), not because of personal vendettas or whatever.

Quote

10. Open up a phone book and look at all the Orthodox churches! Russian, Greek, Ukranian. Where's the unity?

This is just point 3 in snarkier language, isn't it? We could say the same: "Look at the Maronite, Ruthenian, Melkite, Syro-Malabar, etc. Catholic churches! Where's the unity?" Ho hum.

Quote

11. The Orthodox are inconsistent in their teachings. Some baptize non-Orthodox converts, others don't. Some use an Old Calendar, some use a New Calendar.

Economia and sticking to the guidelines given by their respective synods on how to receive converts is not inconsistency. The Church has always taken a differing approach depending on a person's background, in recognition of the fact that a "one-size-fits-all" rule does not work.

I guess these are not such succinct answers (sorry; as an ex-RC I've dealt with this sort of thing often), but they're what I would say (and have said), or at least keep in mind when evaluating RC apologetics.

Ah yes, the good ol' baby approach. Too bad we don't have any around, what with out frequent contraception use!

Bah! You should visit our parish sometime. We're having a baby boom! The grown-ups will soon be outnumbered at Divine Liturgies on Sundays. Only God knows how many buckets of water I've carried on Sabbaths for them to be baptized these past few years...

LOL. You forgot that I'm Orthodox. I don't need to visit your parish to witness the fruitfulness of young Orthodox couples.

Ah yes, the good ol' baby approach. Too bad we don't have any around, what with out frequent contraception use!

Bah! You should visit our parish sometime. We're having a baby boom! The grown-ups will soon be outnumbered at Divine Liturgies on Sundays. Only God knows how many buckets of water I've carried on Sabbaths for them to be baptized these past few years...

LOL. You forgot that I'm Orthodox. I don't need to visit your parish to witness the fruitfulness of young Orthodox couples.

The pleroma of God's Holy Church is manifested in some places more abundantly than in others.

Thanks dzheremi. Regarding your points about non-Roman Rites mirroring the ethnic makeup of the Orthodox Church, I think that the apologist would explain that all those groups offer a "rich Eastern tradition" completely within the See of Peter. Implying that they're immune to the ethnic squabbles and nationalism of their Orthodox cousins, because they can turn to the Pope to settle all their problems.

The "phone book" point is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard, but I've heard it many times.

1. We have a rich liturgy in the Orthodox Church. All you Catholics have are clown masses!

2. I don't trust any bishop without a beard.

3. Roman Catholics are wrong because they ascribe to Augustine (who, btw, is not really a saint) and his heretical teachings.

4. Catholic teaching on original sin is wrong because it teaches inherited guilt (oh, and any name besides "ancestral sin" is instant-heresy).

5. We have the FULL Bible, and while Catholics have more than Protestants their Bible is still so deficient as to be worthless.

6. Not only do we have the full Bible, but we only use the Septuagint - the Old Testament infallibly preserved like the writing of the Gospels themselves. Catholics show their departure from Christianity by using the Hebrew and focusing on Jewish studies to understand it.

7. Catholicism is the cause of most of the modern world's evils by causing the Protestant Reformation, and all of the ideologies that came with it - leading directly to Hitler and Stalin themselves!

8. Catholicism is also the blight on Christianity that's committed the most atrocities, whereas the Eastern Churches have preserved, without stain of corruption, the sanctity of the Church in non-violence.

2. The Orthodox Church can't call themselves "Orthodox" because they lack true union with Rome.

Or, Catholics can't call themselves Catholics because they aren't in union with the Orthodox. I don't think either is the case, just saying that these types of statements go both ways, but generally don't amount to much.

Not meaning to rehash the whole issue of the term "Catholic" ... but if you Orthodox are to be called "Catholic", then what does that mean for the term "Eastern Catholic"?

I mean, if you're "Catholic" and you're "Eastern", wouldn't that make you "Eastern Catholic"?

As a general comment, I agree that there are some very unprofessional -- and let's face it, just plain bad -- Catholic apologists out there.

Not meaning to be random, but I can see a bit of a resemblance between some Catholic apologists/ecumenists and G.K. Chesterton's "agnostic teachers [who] turned clean round":

"When I asked for an altar, I was told that we needed none, for men our brothers gave us clear oracles and one creed in their universal customs and ideals. But if I mildly pointed out that one of men's universal customs was to have an altar, then my agnostic teachers turned clean round and told me that men had always been in darkness and the superstitions of savages." - GK Chesterton, Orthodoxy

I have heard rumors of such tomes existing. Legend has it that they would record the names and some abstract info known as "land line numbers" All attempts by archeologists to date have failed to reveal what these "land line numbers" might be, but initial reports indicate they might me some sort of ancient communications device.

My grandmother used to have one of these "telephone books" and "land lines." Somehow it was related to something she had called a "rotary phone," which you not only couldn't take out with you, but you couldn't even walk around the house with. How did people survive those times?

As for the EO Apologist list(s), I shall have to try my hand at them later

My grandmother used to have one of these "telephone books" and "land lines." Somehow it was related to something she had called a "rotary phone," which you not only couldn't take out with you, but you couldn't even walk around the house with. How did people survive those times?

As for the EO Apologist list(s), I shall have to try my hand at them later

Now I am truly confused, what is the point of texting if you can't walk around with it? Why on earth would you want communicate and search the internet from a single location?

9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.

Rude? Pot meet kettle. I don't know about anyone else but in the Catholic blogosphere the anti-Orthodox sentiment seems to have ramped up lately. I'm not sure why. A post on the ad orientem site from about a month ago goes into some more details.

Hold your arms open? Holding your arms open means unconditional. Yet, you have conditions in both hands. Your conditions are acceptance of the Pope as our infallible leader (won't happen), defending the filioque theologically while being given the concession (how generous) of not actually SAYING it in the creed (again, how generous), recognizing and accepting other doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, etc.

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

I have heard rumors of such tomes existing. Legend has it that they would record the names and some abstract info known as "land line numbers" All attempts by archeologists to date have failed to reveal what these "land line numbers" might be, but initial reports indicate they might me some sort of ancient communications device.

Hmmm, yes. "Land line numbers" were perhaps the ancient genetic code that continues on in modern cellular telphones. The term "telephone" being a vestigial term of a simpler time. Every once in a while the "postman" comes by and drops a bag made of processed petroleum with one of these modern day "phone books." I scream heresy and call him a witch. I have all that information on my cellular telephone with access to the internets and such. I researched all this information at the local temple of "books", but the priestess there showed me a "desktop" computer that also had access to the internets. I tried swiping the screen with my digits, but, lo, she said it was not a touch screen and I must needs use a "mouse."

« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 09:56:30 AM by hecma925 »

Logged

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

9. The Orthodox are rude to Catholics; they disparage us while we hold our arms open, in hope of their reunion.

Rude? Pot meet kettle. I don't know about anyone else but in the Catholic blogosphere the anti-Orthodox sentiment seems to have ramped up lately. I'm not sure why. A post on the ad orientem site from about a month ago goes into some more details.

Hold your arms open? Holding your arms open means unconditional. Yet, you have conditions in both hands. Your conditions are acceptance of the Pope as our infallible leader (won't happen), defending the filioque theologically while being given the concession (how generous) of not actually SAYING it in the creed (again, how generous), recognizing and accepting other doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, etc.

+1, that's how it is in the fine print.

Logged

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

I have heard rumors of such tomes existing. Legend has it that they would record the names and some abstract info known as "land line numbers" All attempts by archeologists to date have failed to reveal what these "land line numbers" might be, but initial reports indicate they might me some sort of ancient communications device.

In the ancient days of Gondor they were not needed, for they had the Seven Stones.

I have heard rumors of such tomes existing. Legend has it that they would record the names and some abstract info known as "land line numbers" All attempts by archeologists to date have failed to reveal what these "land line numbers" might be, but initial reports indicate they might me some sort of ancient communications device.

In the ancient days of Gondor they were not needed, for they had the Seven Stones.

Interesting. So these so called "land lines" are perhaps the decendants of the Seven Stones?

I have heard rumors of such tomes existing. Legend has it that they would record the names and some abstract info known as "land line numbers" All attempts by archeologists to date have failed to reveal what these "land line numbers" might be, but initial reports indicate they might me some sort of ancient communications device.

Hmmm, yes. "Land line numbers" were perhaps the ancient genetic code that continues on in modern cellular telphones. The term "telephone" being a vestigial term of a simpler time. Every once in a while the "postman" comes by and drops a bag made of processed petroleum with one of these modern day "phone books. I scream heresy and call him a witch. I have all that information on my cellular telephone with access to the internets and such. I researched all this information at the local temple of "books", but the priestess there showed me a "desktop" computer that also had access to the internets. I tried swiping the screen with my digits, but, lo, she said it was not a touch screen and I must needs use a "mouse."

A mouse you say? What ancient deviltry is this when animals would access the internet for us? The mice I know can't even do a google search much less any other info I might need. I remain suspicious of such absurd legends.

Mice were actually quite an improvement over having to type all this stuff or using a shell named dos. I know it will strike some as odd that they could fit a shell inside the computer, but computers were larger in those days.

I have heard rumors of such tomes existing. Legend has it that they would record the names and some abstract info known as "land line numbers" All attempts by archeologists to date have failed to reveal what these "land line numbers" might be, but initial reports indicate they might me some sort of ancient communications device.

Hmmm, yes. "Land line numbers" were perhaps the ancient genetic code that continues on in modern cellular telphones. The term "telephone" being a vestigial term of a simpler time. Every once in a while the "postman" comes by and drops a bag made of processed petroleum with one of these modern day "phone books. I scream heresy and call him a witch. I have all that information on my cellular telephone with access to the internets and such. I researched all this information at the local temple of "books", but the priestess there showed me a "desktop" computer that also had access to the internets. I tried swiping the screen with my digits, but, lo, she said it was not a touch screen and I must needs use a "mouse."

A mouse you say? What ancient deviltry is this when animals would access the internet for us? The mice I know can't even do a google search much less any other info I might need. I remain suspicious of such absurd legends.

Believe you me, I searched high and low for a rodent, but she pointed to a grey, ovalesque object with a "cord" attached to said "desktop." I said to the priestess, "You must be mad! That is no such thing as a mouse!" She laughed and showed me how she manipulates the screen, without touching the screen, and using only the "mouse" to summon forth "videos."

"Sorcery!" I screamed. "You and the 'postman' are in league with the devil, Lucifer his own self!"

I was later banished from the temple by our shire's reeve.

Logged

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Mice were actually quite an improvement over having to type all this stuff or using a shell named dos. I know it will strike some as odd that they could fit a shell inside the computer, but computers were larger in those days.

Was it a conch shell?

Logged

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Mice were actually quite an improvement over having to type all this stuff or using a shell named dos. I know it will strike some as odd that they could fit a shell inside the computer, but computers were larger in those days.

First mice and now turtle-computers? Were the turtle computers mobile even if a bit slow? Truly the ancient world must have been a sight to behold.